Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co.’s Empirical Analysis
927 F.2d 1200 · 1991
Citation profile
50 federal appellate · 67 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 272 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa North America Corp. (2002), Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc. (2003)
50 federal appellate · 67 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 35 U.S.C. § 101 · 35 U.S.C. § 102 · 35 U.S.C. § 103 · 35 U.S.C. § 112 · 35 U.S.C. § 285
Relies on Bullock v. United States · Wrenn v. McFadden · Poland v. Arizona · Texas State Commission for the Blind v. United States · Rita v. United States
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 272 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A gene is a chemical compound, albeit a complex one, and it is well established in our law that conception of a chemical compound requires that the inventor be able to define it so as to distinguish it from other materials, and to describe how to obtain it. Conception does not occur unless one has a mental picture of the structure of the chemical, or is able to define it by its method of preparation, its physical or chemical properties, or whatever characteristics sufficiently distinguish it. It is not sufficient to define it solely by its principal biological property, ... because an alleged conception having no more specificity than that is simply a wish to know the identity of any material with that biological property-”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Fiers v. Revel · In re Wallace“[i]n some instances, an inventor is unable to establish a conception until he has reduced the invention to practice through a successful experiment.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.